I think the Alliance might have been defeated by a coalition of NDP & Grits. Or not. :shrug:
Oh, & the rightish-wing magazines would have whined.
The argument would be that Harper didn’t have the confidence of the House of Commons when he advised Jean to prorogue Parliament, and so wasn’t entitled to advise her to do anything.
You’d have to be pretty biased, though, to see the Queen as evil. I can understand (although not agree with) arguments of “pointless”; but “evil” is - with all due respect - just dumb.
The major anti-Liz folks are insane (not counting any colonial nationalist groups currently active, if any). Look up Lyndon LaRouche and David Icke. The former thinks she’s an international drug lord and the latter thinks she’s a lizard person.
Well, we weren’t, because there was no way that Jean would have refused the PM’s advice.
Good question. It would have gone up to the Queen; Harper was ready to ask her to dismiss Jean if she’d refused the prorogation request. My guess is that the Queen would have prorogued Parliament and nominated a new GG (under the advice of Harper), in the interest of maintaining the tradition that Crown prerogatives are exerced under the advice of the PM. A prime minister proroguing Parliament to avoid a vote of confidence is (possibly unfair) political manoeuvering, but still in a sense “business as usual”. A Governor General refusing to follow advice is her taking on a political role, so it’s on a whole other level.
He had it; he’d already won his first votes of confidence following the previous election. What he was, though, was quite likely to lose the confidence of the Commons a few days later when the vote was scheduled to take place, but until this actually happened the presumption was that he still held it.
I understand your point, though. I would say that at the opening of a new parliamentary session, before the first confidence vote on the Throne Speech, the Crown would be in its rights to refuse a request to prorogue or dissolve Parliament, as the government still hasn’t demonstrated that it holds its confidence. And if the confidence vote had happened as scheduled and Harper had lost it, Jean would then have been in her rights to refuse to dissolve Parliament and instead first see if a new government can be formed.
It was, I’ll grant, a borderline situation. I think Harper’s request for prorogation was constitutionally acceptable, if a dirty trick, politically speaking. And it did force him to face a new confidence vote (in the form of a new Throne Speech) a few months later at the reopening of Parliament. Which he won. For this reason I think Jean’s decision was the most constitutionally defensible in that particular situation.
“the most constitutionally defensible”?
What’s the point of having a “vote of no confidence” system if the PM can just dodge the whole thing?
This was my point too, why I said prorogation was Jean’s free choice. Harper was leader of HM Government, entitled to the support of the Crown until he lost a vote of confidence (or retired or resigned). He was entitled to make an effort to avoid being ousted by a coalition that might well disintegrate under the stress of running a Government. He was not entitled to require the Crown to aid him in evading such an ouster.
She had a tightrope to walk – of supporting HMG which had not been repudiated by Commons vs, enabling it to escape the one great Constitutional control on its existence. Granting a prorogation abbreviated from that requested, during which Harper could firm up support and the coalition might, as it did, disintegrate, struck the right balance.
But if it is considered that Harper was entitled to such a proprogation, then there is no check on the Government. Going to get a vote of no confidence? Advise prorogation. Time for General Election? Advise use of the notwithstanding clause to extend the Government’s life for five years. Potentially embarrassing political secrets coming to light? Advise the GG to forbid their publication or discussion. Etc. etc. That’s why having a person, not an inflexible symbol, as the reservoir of sovereignty is valuable: because she can say no to the most egregious political cheats, while allowing a Government to do its normal work unimpeded by partisan crap.
I agree with your general comments, Polycarp, but I’d respectfully suggest these aren’t good examples. The notwithstanding clause doesn’t apply to the length or duration of Parliament, as set out in the Charter, and in any event can only be invoked by Parliament passing a statute, not by the GG. Similarly, the GG does not have any prerogative powers to prohibit publication or discussion of public documents, activities which are similarly protected by the Charter.
Another related thread: Why don't Brits want King Charles III (or will it be King George VII?) - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board. As I posted in that thread, although I’m proud to be an American and am glad we don’t have a monarchy here, it seems to work very well for the British, and it sets them apart from the rest of the world in a very distinctive way. There is an enormous body of tradition and history behind the monarchy which shouldn’t be casually thrown away. It brings in far more money in tourist revenue than it costs the British taxpayer. Quite a few PMs have said that the Queen was an invaluable source of counsel for them, and they really valued their private conferences with her. She has a tremendous depth of political experience and has seen it all before, and almost by definition has no other ambitions.
My understanding of the whole thing is that in theory, all law comes from the Monarch (which is why Liz could, in theory, grab a machine gun and start mowing people down on the streets of London and not be subject to prosecution), but, in a practical sense, she does not execute her powers unless it is on the advice of her ministers (Parliament). I’ve heard that, in theory, the Queen might excercise her powers if Parliament tried to pass a blatantly unjust law, refusing to grant it Royal Assent, but if she did that, there would be a BIG fuss and some people would scream for a Revolution.
Now, in terms of legal theory, the 13 Colonies that became the US were monarchies, weren’t they? I believe that the Code of Virginia today specifically references British law and provides that certain English laws passed up to the reign of a specific monarch are currently the law in Virginia, unless they are unconstitutional or contradicted by later Virginia statutory or case law. If the States of the US, as well as the Republic of Ireland, could make the transition, I don’t see any reason why the UK couldn’t, though I don’t see it happening.
I don’t think the legal technicalities would be a huge problem. I’ve had a look at the Act that made South Africa a republic, and it basically just states that all powers and functions of the monarch were transferred to the (newly-elected) President, and all references in law to the Crown or the monarch were to be interpreted as references to the State or the President.
The real problem, as others have mentioned, would be deciding on how such a President would be elected.
I don’t believe people would scream or a revolution would ensue. I’d suggest instead, that if Parliament tried to pass an unjust law, the people would be calling upon the monarch to (a) refuse Royal Assent in order to nullify the law; and/or (b) dissolve Parliament, thus forcing the politicians who passed that law to try getting re-elected. Both options are constitutionally allowed the Queen or her representatives in the Commonwealth. By calling for a revolution to dump the monarch, the people would be asking to be rid of two of the most important checks and balances on power in a parliamentary system. They may be rarely used, but each is a Sword of Damocles hanging over Parliament’s head.
I have no cite, but I can say that having lived through the federal and provincial budgets of the late 80s and early 90s in Ontario, Canada (increase taxes! tax! tax! tax!);I recall many murmurings of appealing to the Queen/the Governor-General/Lieutenant-Governor to deny assent to the budgets. IIRC, there was no mention of a revolution.
Nah. You forget who really rules the world: Rupert Murdoch. The public would pay him for the privilege of being told what do to, and then do exactly what he told them to do. And any governmental member who objected to this situation would be immediatey stipped of his powers at Murdoch’s orders. Because nobody is allowed to oppose The Murdoch, even if his constituency asks him to.
Vince Cable has earned my vote in perpetuity.
No, Her Majesty does not have an independent law-making power within the UK. Laws in the UK are made by Parliament, composed of the Crown, the Lords and the Commons. She exercises her prerogative and statutory powers on the advice of the Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister.
Any monetary savings from the abolition of the monarchy in the UK would only be realized by the simultaneous confiscation of the royal estates and other properties belonging to the Queen and other royals. Currently, the income from the royal estates is handed over to the government in return for the much smaller Civil List payments.
Note as well that any comments on how Canada, Australia, et al. would transition to republics assumes that those countries would also abolish their monarchies. While likely consequences of a UK abolition, the actions of the UK would have no legal effect on the separate monarchies of the other countries that Elizabeth is Queen of. An abolition of the Canadian monarchy would require a separate Act of the Canadian Parliament, not to mention major changes to our Constitution. (Neville Shute wrote an interesting novel In the Wet in which the separate monarchies play an important part in the story.)